Ultra-leftism and Non-voting

[Working Class Hero]

Just got into a discussion about Bernie Sanders (I know, I know, he's a reformist, spare me the trite dismissals) and the person I was talking to basically said that voting is pointless, because it' just a distraction from the "real" struggle (whatever the fuck that means). I think that, unfortunately, a lot of people here agree with that sentiment.

I countered with the argument that that kind o ultra-leftism is counter-productive and dangerous, because if we don't fight for workers on a ll fronts, we lose. Even if a socialist candidate doesn't win, it raises awareness of the idea. Ultra-leftism frames the worker's struggle as irrelevant to most people.

The idea that the KPD in weimar Germany should have put all their resources into the Rotkampferbund and abandoned elections is laughable: the military would have shot them all down, and Hitler would have become Chancellor even faster.

The idea of Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales abandoning elections and becoming full-time social movement activists is equally laughable: another reactionary caudillo would have become leader and jailed or executed them.

Thoughts?

[#FF0000]

Even if a socialist candidate doesn't win, it raises awareness of the idea. Ultra-leftism frames the worker's struggle as irrelevant to most people.

Plenty of socialist candidates run in every single election explicitly to raise awareness. I don't see how blowing tons of cash and time to "raise awareness" once every presidential election cycle is especially productive. It certainly hasn't been for the past century or so.


The idea that the KPD in weimar Germany should have put all their resources into the Rotkampferbund and abandoned elections is laughable

Why? Clearly, that strategy failed them. And if they did win, what then? I don't remember the history of the KDP very well, but was their plan to simply form a government as a coalition and be act as just another functionary of a bourgeois state, but with a red-tint? I think things like this are important to think about when we talk about electoralism.


and Hitler would have become Chancellor even faster.

That's total speculation, to be fair. On top of completely irrelevant, as they didn't do a whole lot to stop him in the end anyway.


The idea of Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales abandoning elections and becoming full-time social movement activists is equally laughable: another reactionary caudillo would have become leader and jailed or executed them.

I think the idea that Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales are challenging capitalism in any meaningful sense is equally laughable as well.

I don't have a problem with participating in elections. I think that it's foolish, however, to believe that communists can actually participate in government in any meaningful sense without totally abandoning the seeing capitalism overturned, because participation requires incredible compromises between and within parties.

[Sewer Socialist]

Well, in the United States, it is pointless. We have a winner-take-all electoral system and the debates are only for Republicans and Democrats.

This isn't Russia in 1917 or Weimar Germany; we can't use elections as a platform for agitation like they were able to.

Who would I even vote for?

I wouldn't bother convincing people not to vote or anything, but there's a reason left parties in the US don't even bother, or just half-assedly endorse Jill Stein or whoever.

[John Nada]

Just got into a discussion about Bernie Sanders (I know, I know, he's a reformist, spare me the trite dismissals) and the person I was talking to basically said that voting is pointless, because it' just a distraction from the "real" struggle (whatever the fuck that means). I think that, unfortunately, a lot of people here agree with that sentiment.It is a spectacle. But you won't go to hell for taking 15 minutes to vote(to legalize weed), nor will voting for Sanders or the Green candidate lead to socialist heaven. No matter what, the US is effectively a one-party state with two main factions. Hell, vast swaths of the country literally have only either Democrats or Republicans in office.
I countered with the argument that that kind o ultra-leftism is counter-productive and dangerous, because if we don't fight for workers on a ll fronts, we lose. Even if a socialist candidate doesn't win, it raises awareness of the idea. Ultra-leftism frames the worker's struggle as irrelevant to most people.Maybe awareness of the idea of socialism is already rising? Perhaps the Democrats found this in their market research for the election, so they let Sanders run to ride it?

IRL the problem isn't "ultra-leftism". If anything, right opportunism is the principle threat in the US(and much of the world while at it). The workers' struggle goes beyond checking a box every 4 years. Things such as elections are supposed to complement, not fully replace, other forms of struggle. Yet opportunism pervasive outside the ballot box isn't addressed.
The idea that the KPD in weimar Germany should have put all their resources into the Rotkampferbund and abandoned elections is laughable: the military would have shot them all down, and Hitler would have become Chancellor even faster.The KPD did get shot down and Hitler became Chancellor anyway. Whether pouring all their resources into elections and abandoning the RFB would've stopped the Nazis, we'll never know.:unsure:

The US proletariat is not(as of now) faced with the fascist threat. The Republicans are repulsive but the ultra-rightist faction are not in charge of that party. The Democrats don't have their own paramilitary(a good thing?), so they'd be useless anyway for an anti-fascist united front.
The idea of Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales abandoning elections and becoming full-time social movement activists is equally laughable: another reactionary caudillo would have become leader and jailed or executed them.The US proletariat is not faced with imperialism of the same type as South American nations. Also Morales has gone neoliberal.

It wasn't just elections in Venezuela. There was power outside of the government, such as the colectivos. But Chavez depended too much on the electoral path and the national bourgeoisie, and the PSUV with the GPP depended too heavily on Chavez's persona. Towards the end of his life, he even said the workers need to seize power themselves from below. Now with the backing of US imperialism, the comprador bourgeoisie with their petty-bourgeois and lumpen allies, are now attacking the workers' gains. Venezuela is now under economic war.
Thoughts?The US isn't fighting foreign imperialism or fascism. The tactic of working with reformists had less that successful results in those examples. Nor can you transplant those examples to the modern situation in the US. The Democrats are letting Sanders run because socialism is already polling better with young people, so there's a rising social democrat niche market. The problem isn't "ultra-leftism" but "wait for the Apocalypse" opportunism.

[Rafiq]

There can be no way to rally behind universal abstractions like abstinence from voting 'in principle', but we can certainly recognize the futility of executive based electoral politics in the United States. That is to say, "voting" could very well be effective, but there is no reason for Leftists to vote for candidates for executive elections in the US - but, say, in Southern European countries, abstaining from voting given certain circumstances would be erroneous. If we were in a position to command voting action for masses of people, then abstinence from elections would be a display of weakness. Instead, ritualized and formal spoilage would be effective insofar as it demonstrates, in the public eye, the power of a revolutionary movement.

Regarding Sanders, he has no real program. Sanders either knows very well he cannot ever get elected, or he must know that he cannot even do a fraction of the things he promises he will do. Sanders knows this. We must therefore recognize that his campaign itself is one massive spoilage campaign, but one that obfuscates political consciousness among working people. Sanders' demands are modest, yet impossible, and they are just as unforgivable as the left-liberal intellectual who places present issues squarely beyond their root cause. It is not a matter of "making do" with what we have, it is not a matter of being practical or pragmatic. If anything, Sanders represents that there exists a vacuum that American Communists need to fill.

[tuwix]

Just got into a discussion about Bernie Sanders (I know, I know, he's a reformist, spare me the trite dismissals) and the person I was talking to basically said that voting is pointless, because it' just a distraction from the "real" struggle (whatever the fuck that means). I think that, unfortunately, a lot of people here agree with that sentiment.

I countered with the argument that that kind o ultra-leftism is counter-productive and dangerous, because if we don't fight for workers on a ll fronts, we lose. Even if a socialist candidate doesn't win, it raises awareness of the idea. Ultra-leftism frames the worker's struggle as irrelevant to most people.

The idea that the KPD in weimar Germany should have put all their resources into the Rotkampferbund and abandoned elections is laughable: the military would have shot them all down, and Hitler would have become Chancellor even faster.

The idea of Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales abandoning elections and becoming full-time social movement activists is equally laughable: another reactionary caudillo would have become leader and jailed or executed them.

Thoughts?

Venezuela and Bolivia are just good examples not to vote. According to FAO in Bolivia, after a quite long period of ruling by Morales, there is still malnutrition. In Venezuela, there is high inflation and shortages of products. It reminds me "solutions" applied in Leninist Poland in the 80s...

But voting really can give as the best what is in Bolivia, Venezuela and Nordic countries. Is it satisfactory for revolutionary leftist?
It isn't definitely satisfactory for me.

[Bala Perdida]

In 2014, there were mass uprisings and agitations that happened across the US. On a mass not even seen during the Occupy movement. During the same year, the voter turnout in the US was at it's lowest in a decade (fact check needed). Now, do you really think voting would have been better than mass uprising and consciousness on that scale?

[The Feral Underclass]

I countered with the argument that that kind o ultra-leftism is counter-productive and dangerous, because if we don't fight for workers on a ll fronts, we lose.

I think this sentence gets to the heart of the issue between ultraleft analysis vs leftists. Your conceptualisation of class struggle is essentially substitutionist whereby you see the job of revolutionaries as fighting on behalf of the "worker". If you conceive class struggle by that dynamic then of course reformist terrains will appeal to you. You see the opportunity of a front to fight for workers in every sphere, whether it is on the street at a demonstration or in a bourgeois legislature. You also conceive of the subject of the worker as being something in-and-of itself to be fought for, which is why you see such benefit in things like wage disputes, better conditions and whatever other nonsense bourgeois socialist politicians drone on about. You see workers as a subject that requires fighting for to achieve concessions to have better lives as workers.

The idea that the revolutionary purpose of "the worker" is to confront its own subjectivity in its historic, antagonistic battle with the bourgeoisie isn't even something you can conceptualise, never mind understand how entirely useless voting is on that basis. Since this fundamentally rejects the idea of the worker as a subject fighting for better conditions in that subjectivity, naturally it is dangerous and counter-productive to you.

To your substitutionist, workerist bullshit, it is indeed dangerous and counter-productive and I'm very glad about that.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think this sentence gets to the heart of the issue between ultraleft analysis vs leftists. Your conceptualisation of class struggle is essentially substitutionist whereby you see the job of revolutionaries as fighting on behalf of the "worker". If you conceive class struggle by that dynamic then of course reformist terrains will appeal to you. You see the opportunity of a front to fight for workers in every sphere, whether it is on the street at a demonstration or in a bourgeois legislature. You also conceive of the subject of the worker as being something in-and-of itself to be fought for, which is why you see such benefit in things like wage disputes, better conditions and whatever other nonsense bourgeois socialist politicians drone on about. You see workers as a subject that requires fighting for to achieve concessions to have better lives as workers.

The idea that the revolutionary purpose of "the worker" is to confront its own subjectivity in its historic, antagonistic battle with the bourgeoisie isn't even something you can conceptualise, never mind understand how entirely useless voting is on that basis. Since this fundamentally rejects the idea of the worker as a subject fighting for better conditions in that subjectivity, naturally it is dangerous and counter-productive to you.

To your substitutionist, workerist bullshit, it is indeed dangerous and counter-productive and I'm very glad about that.
Historically, it is usually only through the day to day class struggle, the struggles for better wages, better conditions etc that workers come to realise the ideas of socialism. Otherwise the ideas of socialism are abstract and separate from what workers experience. The strongest socialist movements have developed from the periods of acute class struggle, hence during this period of low class struggle we have a weak socialist movement. Saying that day to day class struggle is pointless and then suddenly expecting the working class to adopt your ideas (which have essentially become abstract due to their lack of relevance) is deluded. The day to day struggles for wages and, yes, even reforms is necessary for the movement for socialism to grow and strengthen.

@OP: Socialists shouldn't take a principled 'you shouldn't vote' any more than socialists should take a principled 'you should vote' position. Voting/participation in bourgeois parliaments only serve a purpose in so far as they are supplementary to the broader movement for socialism - that they are used to prevent or challenge the 'legitimacy' of the bourgeois attempts to suppress the movement for socialism. Getting a socialist elected cannot be in and of itself the goal, the purpose, of socialist movements. The goal is socialism and to reach that goal we need to weaken the bourgeoisie and strengthen the proletariat and voting for Bernie Sanders, who's simply propping up the left-liberal wing of the bourgeois Democrat party, does neither, unfortunately.

[The Feral Underclass]

Historically, it is usually only through the day to day class struggle, the struggles for better wages, better conditions etc that workers come to realise the ideas of socialism. Otherwise the ideas of socialism are abstract and separate from what workers experience. The strongest socialist movements have developed from the periods of acute class struggle, hence during this period of low class struggle we have a weak socialist movement. Saying that day to day class struggle is pointless and then suddenly expecting the working class to adopt your ideas (which have essentially become abstract due to their lack of relevance) is deluded.

I don't think day-to-day struggle is pointless, I just think the struggles you conceive are. I also don't want working class people to "adopt" my ideas. What ideas do they need to adopt? The ideas of socialism are just ephemera, they're just a means of analysis. No one needs to "adopt" them in order to do what is in their interest to do. The antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is still going to exist whether someone adopts "socialism" or not. You don't need to become a socialist for that to be true.


The day to day struggles for wages and, yes, even reforms is necessary for the movement for socialism to grow and strengthen.

That has never been true and it has never succeeded. Name one wage dispute in recent memory where a victory has strengthened the movement for socialism? In fact name any reform that has ever been won that has ever strengthened or grown the movement of socialism. If that were true, everyone would be a socialist by now.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Historically, it is usually only through the day to day class struggle, the struggles for better wages, better conditions etc that workers come to realise the ideas of socialism. Otherwise the ideas of socialism are abstract and separate from what workers experience. The strongest socialist movements have developed from the periods of acute class struggle, hence during this period of low class struggle we have a weak socialist movement. Saying that day to day class struggle is pointless and then suddenly expecting the working class to adopt your ideas (which have essentially become abstract due to their lack of relevance) is deluded. The day to day struggles for wages and, yes, even reforms is necessary for the movement for socialism to grow and strengthen.

@OP: Socialists shouldn't take a principled 'you shouldn't vote' any more than socialists should take a principled 'you should vote' position. Voting/participation in bourgeois parliaments only serve a purpose in so far as they are supplementary to the broader movement for socialism - that they are used to prevent or challenge the 'legitimacy' of the bourgeois attempts to suppress the movement for socialism. Getting a socialist elected cannot be in and of itself the goal, the purpose, of socialist movements. The goal is socialism and to reach that goal we need to weaken the bourgeoisie and strengthen the proletariat and voting for Bernie Sanders, who's simply propping up the left-liberal wing of the bourgeois Democrat party, does neither, unfortunately.

With so many opportunists on the forum looking for ways to latch onto bourgeois and reformist political parties, to cuddle up to syriza, the muslim brotherhood, the green party, and hope to use them as unconscious tools for their revolutionary projects, it's not surprising that that the ultra-lefts come away with a sour taste about fighting for reforms. Those who reject ultraleftism sure aren't doing a good job in distinguishing reforms from reformism. You are right in pointing out that the class struggle is the seedbed of revolutionary struggle.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't think day-to-day struggle is pointless, I just think the struggles you conceive are.
Well I don't want to attribute things to you that you don't mean but you did write that wage disputes were 'nonsense'.


I also don't want working class people to "adopt" my ideas. What ideas do they need to adopt? The ideas of socialism are just ephemera, they're just a means of analysis. No one needs to "adopt" them in order to do what is in their interest to do.
If the ideas of socialism are 'a means of analysis' then surely people need to understand them in order to properly know 'what is in their interest'?


That has never been true and it has never succeeded. Name one wage dispute in recent memory where a victory has strengthened the movement for socialism? In fact name any reform that has ever been won that has ever strengthened or grown the movement of socialism. If that were true, everyone would be a socialist by now.
In recent memory indeed they aren't exactly many instances of day to day class struggle that have had a revolutionary element to it that have strengthened socialism but, again, we are in a low period of class struggle altogether. I think you could point to events such as the factory occupation movement in Argentina/Greece that were built off the backs of day to day class struggle that hint at the potential for the growth of socialism in these cases and certainly made large swathes of those countries far more aware and susceptible to the ideas of workers' control of the means of production. But these are outliers.

As for reforms? Not being put in jail for going on strike is pretty useful. As with all reforms, their usefulness is only apparent as a part of a wider movement for socialism and if he tide of class struggle wanes then those reforms lose whatever elements were once useful.

[Rafiq]

I don't think day-to-day struggle is pointless, I just think the struggles you conceive are. I also don't want working class people to "adopt" my ideas

Not only is this patronizing to workers, it is plainly wrong. It is not they who are adopting your ideas, it is the responsibility of those capable, and who are dedicated, to properly wrought out the class antagonism in the political sphere. Did workers adopt the ideas of the Communists? No, the Communists were able to approximate Communism as PROLETARIAN. If the working class will not adopt "your ideas", they will adopt the ideas of Fascists and opportunists. You seem to think there is a 'working class' that exists in a sort of caste, that operates for itself by default. But the "working class" without Communism, without class consciousness, like the bourgeoisie - is a conglomeration of apathetic individuals with a shared cultural space. It is not a matter of the workers "adopting" your ideas, it is a matter of properly conceiving the ideas which are necessary for their emancipation, which they are not in a position to do.

The reality is that no mass-ideological transformation occurs by having workers 'adopt' your specific ideas, but by transforming what is theory into a new practical political language. Only the intelligentsia, surprisingly, fetishizes this workerist attitude, of spontaneity, because they are in a position to ideologically grasp its consequences.


That has never been true and it has never succeeded.

So because we are not living in socialism, day-to-day struggles do not have this effect? A more pertinent question would be: Name me one revolutionary movement that did not have the precedent of a cumulative immediate struggle that includes the wage struggle.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just got into a discussion about Bernie Sanders (I know, I know, he's a reformist, spare me the trite dismissals) and the person I was talking to basically said that voting is pointless, because it' just a distraction from the "real" struggle (whatever the fuck that means). I think that, unfortunately, a lot of people here agree with that sentiment.

I countered with the argument that that kind o ultra-leftism is counter-productive and dangerous, because if we don't fight for workers on a ll fronts, we lose. Even if a socialist candidate doesn't win, it raises awareness of the idea. Ultra-leftism frames the worker's struggle as irrelevant to most people

O whole lot of slander here.

No, it isn't true that the ultra-left necessarily frames workers' struggle as irrelevant to most people. Actually, it's hard to see where does this claim come from as it seem completely unsubstantiated. I for one place big emphasis on workers' struggles (which is something quite different from Mr. Sanders' electoral campaign).

Probably the relation lies in the particularly pernicious idea of "we" (who, Sanders? communists) "fighting for workers". That's the same old logic of political substitutionism (substituting the self-organization and radical activity of the whole class with political machinations of the parties and even realpolitik).

Another problem is the insistence on raising awareness. While on its own this indeed is part of the role for the political class vanguard*, it isn't sufficient without other conditions. One prominent condition being readiness to fight and connect with ever larger categories of other workers and the oppressed (e.g. across sectoral boundaries, regional, national, ethnic and gender etc etc).

[John Nada]

It might be that reforms and concession are a sort of strategic/tactical retreat on the part of the bourgeoisie and state in response to an "offensive" on part of the proletariat and oppressed masses. For the bourgeoisie virtual never do anything just out of the kindness of their heart. This gives the workers breathing space, but the bourgeoisie too can utilize this break to hold onto power. Then when the reforms and concessions are revoked, and the clamp of exploitation is tightened, that represents a counterattack. Being on the defensive, workers and oppressed peoples fight back vigorously with tenacity. On the defensive or even defeat, this manifests itself as a "low tide".

Empowered by the defeat of the proletariat and oppressed masses, the bourgeoisie pushing on with the attack. This results in a "period of reaction". This takes the form of reform and concession won in the proletariat previous victories being undone and then some. Attempts at gaining the initiative on part of the proletariat seemingly is just a string of losses.

Just read various old leftist literature and see the author cry out "There's nothing going on!"Then often a few years later it just explodes. The ruling class overreached. This patter proceeds not linear, but like waves or a jigsaw.

Is it possible that the reforms are merely a byproduct of the class struggle marching toward victories anyway, thus leaving more room to maneuver? That the frontline has been pushed foward, revealing more of the other side. This then is often mistaken as the effect(progressive reforms and concessions) as the cause(losing on part of the ruling class). This case of mistaken identity causes many to mistake the reformist side(elections and union agreements) as the principle part, rather than complementary or even just a positive side effect.

There's been a recession that was for all practical purposes a depression. Globally, it's not much of a recovery. These recessions happen every 10 years, give or take. Next recession will likely be worse. There's been nearly perpetual war, with no end in sight. Civil rights are greatly eroded, with one of the most massive police and prison states in history taking root in the US. Unionization is dropping, with a labor bureaucracy unable or unwilling to reverse it. There's racist oppression, that's caused riots. Rather than "New Deal" and "Great Society" reforms, there's austerity. Capitalism is even changing the Earth's climate for the worse. The bourgeoisie is running out of tricks to put out.

What I'm getting at is rather than Sanders being an opening to put forward socialist ideas, perhaps Sanders even being allowed to run is a response to socialist ideas rising in appeal. What is objective conditions ironically favorable to a proletariat, there is left-liberal subjective conditions in lieu of otherwise. Reformist illusions take place of revolutionary ideas.
As for reforms? Not being put in jail for going on strike is pretty useful. As with all reforms, their usefulness is only apparent as a part of a wider movement for socialism and if he tide of class struggle wanes then those reforms lose whatever elements were once useful.When strikes and revolutionary movements were at a high point, it was preceded by and concurrent with shit that would make those crying "ultra-left" faint with horror. Reforms are nice, but how did reforms help any revolution like in Russia or China vs. the lack thereof in the US and the UK? Neither of the former were a good place to live for workers in terms of progress, while the latter had much more bourgeois democratic rights and more reforms going through. Progressive reforms may be a nice byproduct that neither necessarily advances nor hinders a movement for socialism.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

When strikes and revolutionary movements were at a high point, it was preceded by and concurrent with shit that would make those crying "ultra-left" faint with horror. Reforms are nice, but how did reforms help any revolution like in Russia or China vs. the lack thereof in the US and the UK? Neither of the former were a good place to live for workers in terms of progress, while the latter had much more bourgeois democratic rights and more reforms going through. Progressive reforms may be a nice byproduct that neither necessarily advances nor hinders a movement for socialism.
Yet it was only through their participation in the bourgeois assemblies in addition to the workers' soviets that allowed the Bolsheviks to turn from a small party representing only the most militant workers to the party that represented the working class as a whole. I could equally point to the anti-parliament stances of the syndicalists in Italy and France or the KAPD in Germany who ultimately failed at connecting the most militant workers in their nations to the broader struggles and political movements due to their reluctance to organise in bourgeois parliaments and reactionary trade unions. The goal is socialism at the end of the day but revolutionaries shouldn't shy away from utilising the bourgeois democratic processes as a supplement to the broader class struggle. Sanders, on the other hand, clearly doesn't represent the 'broader class struggle'.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well I don't want to attribute things to you that you don't mean but you did write that wage disputes were 'nonsense'.

I said I found wage disputes nonsense and you extrapolated from that position. You concluded, based on a false premise, that I therefore reject daily struggles. You are the one that conflated daily struggles and wage disputes. I had nothing to do with your confusion.


If the ideas of socialism are 'a means of analysis' then surely people need to understand them in order to properly know 'what is in their interest'?

Perhaps, but this historical antagonism permeates everything that we do as proletarians, whether it is being at work, within our communities, at home, with our friends, with our lovers, with our families and so on. It is every time your bus makes you late for work, it is every time your car insurance goes up, it is every time your boss makes you work overtime, it is there all the time. Understanding what that is doesn't require someone to "adopt" anything. It simply requires the content of Marx's analysis to fertilise what already exists. There is a quantitive difference between understanding something and "adopting" something, and I think for leftists especially, the concept of "adopting" takes on a sinister motivation. The working class adopting socialism is a necessary step towards being led and as with all leftists, leading the working class is an integral part of their strategy.


In recent memory indeed they aren't exactly many instances of day to day class struggle that have had a revolutionary element to it that have strengthened socialism but, again, we are in a low period of class struggle altogether. I think you could point to events such as the factory occupation movement in Argentina/Greece that were built off the backs of day to day class struggle that hint at the potential for the growth of socialism in these cases and certainly made large swathes of those countries far more aware and susceptible to the ideas of workers' control of the means of production. But these are outliers.

The claim that winning concessions from the bourgeoisie can strengthen the socialist movement has failed to manifest itself in any tangible, substantive way. The strategy has not and will never work.


As for reforms? Not being put in jail for going on strike is pretty useful. As with all reforms, their usefulness is only apparent as a part of a wider movement for socialism and if he tide of class struggle wanes then those reforms lose whatever elements were once useful.

Pretty useful to what, though? It certainly isn't useful if your objective is to escalate confrontation with the bourgeoisie. If that is your plan it is entirely un-useful.

[BIXX]

Name me one revolutionary movement that did not have the precedent of a cumulative immediate struggle that includes the wage struggle.

I'm gonna say there have never been any revolutionary movements.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well all anarchist movements that managed to become mass movements have been syndicalist in nature, because syndicalism fights for immediate demands, including for improved wages and working conditions. The CNT would never have been so large in the 1930s had it not engaged in struggles to improve the daily lives of workers. Whereas, there's never been any ultraleft group with anything resembling a sizeable membership as far as I know. So the stuff Feral Underclass wrote about being external to the working class, etc., sounds appealing, but then in practice, how is this manifested? Historically, ultraleft groups have always been small circles of people highly interested in political theory outside the working class.

[Working Class Hero]

I just think that the same people who dismiss electoral fights are often the same ones who dismiss Occupy for "not being radical enough" or whatever their criticism is, even when it's one of the few mass movements to take form in the last few decades. I feel like a lot of people on this board (and this has been my criticism of RevLeft for a long time) is that a lot of us are armchair revolutionaries who don't want to get out on the streets, don't want to organize with other workers in whatever capacity, don't want to support socialistic candidates.... don't want to do anything except read hundred-year-old books by dead white guys and prattle on about theories that don't seem to work. It's pathetic. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.

[BIXX]

All voting will ever do is build cages.

[Cliff Paul]

and prattle on about theories that don't seem to work. It's pathetic. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.

I'm not sure your condescending attitude is warranted. If you want to go wave a flag around or go door to door for Bernie Sanders then go ahead. But don't start acting all "holier than thou" because you actually think you are making a difference.

[#FF0000]

I just think that the same people who dismiss electoral fights are often the same ones who dismiss Occupy for "not being radical enough" or whatever their criticism is, even when it's one of the few mass movements to take form in the last few decades.

"Or whatever their criticism is"?

Sounds like you're unsure of the criticism here. In which case, I'm not sure where you find room to be condescending when you don't know or can't understand what people are saying to you.


I feel like a lot of people on this board (and this has been my criticism of RevLeft for a long time) is that a lot of us are armchair revolutionaries who don't want to get out on the streets, don't want to organize with other workers in whatever capacity, don't want to support socialistic candidates.... don't want to do anything except read hundred-year-old books by dead white guys and prattle on about theories that don't seem to work. It's pathetic. :rolleyes:I think what's more pathetic is setting back into this condescending attitude and making sweeping assumptions about people you don't know on the internet just because you're too lazy or simple to address the points raised.

And if you want to get holier than thou I could tell you about the work the groups I'm involved with have been doing in fighting the natural gas companies in our region, setting the foundations of a worker's center in an area with zero radical infrastructure whatsoever, organizing minority unions and workplace councils in a region with almost no union presence whatsoever, packing courthouses, writing letters, organizing support for the incarcerated who were retaliated against for protesting systemic abuse in my state's prisons, etc. etc. etc. Meanwhile here you are puffing out your chest because no one recognizes that you're doing the real work, the real heavy lifting of working on a campaign for a dark horse candidate who's isolated within his own party while also being isolated as an Executive with a Republican Legislature.

Are you actually doing any of the legwork of working on the campaign, even? Or just berating people on the internet for not voting for your Democrat?


I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.If that makes you feel better about your failure, more power to you. Don't get mad as us if we'd rather take a critical look at what we're doing and why we're failures. And if you want to check that 'tude we can go back to discussing this like grown-ups.

[Working Class Hero]

And if you want to get holier than thou I could tell you about the work the groups I'm involved with have been doing in fighting the natural gas companies in our region, setting the foundations of a worker's center in an area with zero radical infrastructure whatsoever, organizing minority unions and workplace councils in a region with almost no union presence whatsoever, packing courthouses, writing letters, organizing support for the incarcerated who were retaliated against for protesting systemic abuse in my state's prisons, etc. etc. etc. Meanwhile here you are puffing out your chest because no one recognizes that you're doing the real work, the real heavy lifting of working on a campaign for a dark horse candidate who's isolated within his own party while also being isolated as an Executive with a Republican Legislature.

I'm not saying that NO-ONE has done anything good here, and I congratulate you on what you've accomplished (not being sarcastic or condescending), but a lot of people on here are more interested in navel-gazing and doing nothing than actually doing something. Campaigning for a left alternative i something. I'm not saying we should vote for every Democratic candidate, but some candidates are worth our support.

What Worker's Center did you work with? I'm thinking of help starting one.

[Sewer Socialist]

I just think that the same people who dismiss electoral fights are often the same ones who dismiss Occupy for "not being radical enough" or whatever their criticism is, even when it's one of the few mass movements to take form in the last few decades. I feel like a lot of people on this board (and this has been my criticism of RevLeft for a long time) is that a lot of us are armchair revolutionaries who don't want to get out on the streets, don't want to organize with other workers in whatever capacity, don't want to support socialistic candidates.... don't want to do anything except read hundred-year-old books by dead white guys and prattle on about theories that don't seem to work. It's pathetic. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.

I mean, that's probably the most important criticism of Occupy. It wasn't radical enough. That doesn't mean us ultra-leftists weren't involved in it; that doesn't mean we weren't trying to make it radical enough. Criticism does not mean that the critics are inactive. For a historical example, the KPD was critical of the Weimar Republic while also actively trying to destroy it.

What "socialistic" candidate or candidates do I even have the option of supporting in the USA? A couple people running for city council in cities I don't live in?

Even the "socialist" candidates who have been elected recently have been a total failure in using the offices to which they have been elected for criticism and agitation. They have focused solely on achieving reforms themselves rather then using them as a wedge to build a movement for a maximum program.

You're using the KPD and the RSDLP as examples of using elections for this, but there is literally no one doing this in the United States. Maybe with some criticism by people further to the left from them, they'd think about it. Maybe (here's a crazy idea coming up, but bear with me) this criticism can even be part of the same movement - all this talk of socialist politicians does bring up quite a lot of discussion on what socialism is, doesn't it?

Dead white guys have written some pretty good books over the years, by the way. I bet even that reformist Bernie Sanders has read some of them.

[#FF0000]

I'm not saying we should vote for every Democratic candidate, but some candidates are worth our support.

I don't think so outside of tactical votes for immediate concerns. I'm not gonna fault folks in my IWW branch for voting for the guy running against the candidate who's gonna close down the abortion clinics in the area. However I think it's a mistake to think it will lead anywhere or do anything to build a movement.


What Worker's Center did you work with? I'm thinking of help starting one.We have a lot of folks who used to be involved with the Vermont Worker's Center active in my state with a new organization. We've been in contact with them talking about how to lay the groundwork and plan one of these things out. It's the pet project of another member of my IWW branch so I don't know the specifics beyond a rough 10-year plan for running it and ideas for funding (grants, local associations that offer low-interest loans for this kind of thing as part of a "revitalization" plan for the city) etc.

[Working Class Hero]

That's really helpful. I've been thinking about interning at the VWC and getting a part-time job in Burlington to get some experience and learn their insights. They do some really great work organizing migrant workers, and I'd like to have something similar in my state.

[John Nada]

Yet it was only through their participation in the bourgeois assemblies in addition to the workers' soviets that allowed the Bolsheviks to turn from a small party representing only the most militant workers to the party that represented the working class as a whole."Only" is a bit strong. Those bourgeois assemblies came into existence due to the Revolution of 1905.
The Bolsheviks’ boycott of “parliament” in 1905 enriched the revolutionary proletariat with highly valuable political experience and showed that, when legal and illegal parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle are combined, it is sometimes useful and even essential to reject parliamentary forms. It would, however, be highly erroneous to apply this experience blindly, imitatively and uncritically to other conditions and other situations.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch04.htm#fw* IMO it's unfortunate that this work has become the go-to for opportunists. Not his best work IMO. Some useful things, but they usually ignore the good bits.

The Bolsheviks participated in insurrections and constructing dual power also, which were aided by legalist work if possible. The participation in bourgeois assemblies was part of a larger overall strategy towards a revolution. "Left"(liquidating themselves and going underground) and right(liquidating themselves for reformism) opportunism would've just been masochism. No use running in the snow barefoot if you can get shoes.
I could equally point to the anti-parliament stances of the syndicalists in Italy and France or the KAPD in Germany who ultimately failed at connecting the most militant workers in their nations to the broader struggles and political movements due to their reluctance to organise in bourgeois parliaments and reactionary trade unions.There was a whole lot wrong besides their opposition to parliaments and reactionary trade unions. Sad thing is those two were still more successful than many. Yet again Lenin has an answer:
In many countries, including the most advanced, the bourgeoisie are undoubtedly sending agents provocateurs into the Communist parties and will continue to do so. A skilful combining of illegal and legal work is one of the ways to combat this danger. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm
The goal is socialism at the end of the day but revolutionaries shouldn't shy away from utilising the bourgeois democratic processes as a supplement to the broader class struggle. Sanders, on the other hand, clearly doesn't represent the 'broader class struggle'.There is nothing saying you'll go to hell if bourgeois democratic instruments are used if possible. I'd say it's a tactic, not a general theory of revolution. And in the US there's very limited openings for electoralism(no parliament but a two bourgeois party system) and changing many unions from within("right to work", "at will employment" and other bullshit). It's possible on a local level, but as an affirmation of changes occurring outside of just working through reformism.
I just think that the same people who dismiss electoral fights are often the same ones who dismiss Occupy for "not being radical enough" or whatever their criticism is, even when it's one of the few mass movements to take form in the last few decades. I feel like a lot of people on this board (and this has been my criticism of RevLeft for a long time) is that a lot of us are armchair revolutionaries who don't want to get out on the streets, don't want to organize with other workers in whatever capacity, don't want to support socialistic candidates.... don't want to do anything except read hundred-year-old books by dead white guys and prattle on about theories that don't seem to work. It's pathetic.Condemning and ridiculing opportunism of the "left" type does not make right opportunism look better. Armchair reformism is no different than armchair revolutions. None of the theories you've proposed are new(also cooked up by whites guys dead for a hundred years) nor are they more successful. Not voting for a social democrat doesn't preclude anyone from doing all that other stuff. Fuck, voting for a social democrat doesn't either. It's entirely possible to disagree without saying the other side is pathetic. Also Che and Mao weren't white.:grin:
I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.And I'm trying to make a better world, and am of the postion that it must be revolutionary by default. Not because our Lord and Savior Marx said so, but because of coming to that conclusion.

[Bala Perdida]

I just think that the same people who dismiss electoral fights are often the same ones who dismiss Occupy for "not being radical enough" or whatever their criticism is, even when it's one of the few mass movements to take form in the last few decades.
Not trying to better the system, trying to destroy it. Also a bulk of occupy sucked from what I hear, although I do give it credit for it's militancy and exposure to places which otherwise wouldn't have seen radicalism in the flesh. A lot of people I've seen who criticize occupy don't really have an idea who composed it or what went down. That's from so called 'radicals' who think it was a bunch of smelly hippies, but who don't realize that it was a lot of people with their same views.

I feel like a lot of people on this board (and this has been my criticism of RevLeft for a long time) is that a lot of us are armchair revolutionaries who don't want to get out on the streets, don't want to organize with other workers in whatever capacity, don't want to support socialistic candidates.... don't want to do anything except read hundred-year-old books by dead white guys and prattle on about theories that don't seem to work. It's pathetic. :rolleyes:What the fuck do you know bout how people organize on here. Also, I could give less of a shit about theoretical fetishism. Still, what the fuck are you doing that's working? How is voting for some piece of shit socialist (rad or lib) gonna keep me from getting arrested for 'loitering' when I try to give away clothes?

I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.
Well, from a working person I say I'm not interested in holding your hand. Also, you sound like a total ass limiting the struggle to workers. Take your vanguard and shove it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well all anarchist movements that managed to become mass movements have been syndicalist in nature, because syndicalism fights for immediate demands, including for improved wages and working conditions. The CNT would never have been so large in the 1930s had it not engaged in struggles to improve the daily lives of workers. Whereas, there's never been any ultraleft group with anything resembling a sizeable membership as far as I know. So the stuff Feral Underclass wrote about being external to the working class, etc., sounds appealing, but then in practice, how is this manifested? Historically, ultraleft groups have always been small circles of people highly interested in political theory outside the working class.

You mean the CNT that capitulated and collaborated with the bourgeois socialist government and betrayed the left of the anarchist movement? If the CNT is an example of anything, it is precisely that collusion with the bourgeois state is fundamentally antithetical to the survival of a revolution.

Movement building is a particularly leftist concept, so what ultraleft group with a sizeable membership do you think there should be? But it's not a competition is it? Or is it? Is this really reducible to how many members you can get?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.

I don't want a better fucking life as a worker! I don't want to be a worker. That's the point here. You want us all to be workers and you see your role as trying to make it better to be a worker. That's the fundamental problem with your point-of-view. That isn't just not being revolutionary, that's decidedly reactionary.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There is nothing saying you'll go to hell if bourgeois democratic instruments are used if possible. I'd say it's a tactic, not a general theory of revolution. And in the US there's very limited openings for electoralism(no parliament but a two bourgeois party system) and changing many unions from within("right to work", "at will employment" and other bullshit). It's possible on a local level, but as an affirmation of changes occurring outside of just working through reformism.
That's basically the entirety of my position... That using reforms and bourgeois parliament is a tactic that can only be supplementary to the broader class struggle. Don't know what we're arguing about.


Movement building is a particularly leftist concept, so what ultraleft group with a sizeable membership do you think there should be? But it's not a competition is it? Or is it? Is this really reducible to how many members you can get?
I think there's a fundamental flaw in any revolutionary movement that doesn't try and grow in numbers. Might as well be Blanquist.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think there's a fundamental flaw in any revolutionary movement that doesn't try and grow in numbers.

Well yeah, if your objective is to build a revolutionary movement then I would imagine that 'growing your numbers' is an important factor. The success of any brand is in its 'numbers.' Any marketing or sales department will tell you that. This is why battling in all terrains is so necessary for you people. It is a way of marketing your brand to the most amount of people in order to grow your numbers. This, in a nutshell, is what you are about.

But that doesn't explain what this movement is, what its use is and why it is so important. All it shows is that you fetishise growth and base success on the amount of people that sign up to your brand.


Might as well be Blanquist.

The scope of your understanding must be very narrow if the choice for you is leftism or Blanquism.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It's not ultra-leftism to be against campaigning for Bernie Sanders and trying to get him elected.

1. This guy isn't a socialist. Lots of people are saying that Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist opens up space to talk about socialism. I think it's true, people on tv talk about how Bernie is a socialist, too far to the left for America, all of that stuff. The problem is people aren't actually getting to know what socialism is through all of this so if we want something positive out of this experience we're going to have to take the stance of correcting people about what socialism is after all the different things they've been told about it, to give people better information about socialism. So already if you're trying to build a socialist movement from within you're going to have to stand in contradiction with Bernie amongst Bernie Sanders supporters.

2. Bernie Sanders probably can't win against Hillary Clinton, let alone win a general election. This means we'd be putting in work for the graveyard of movements Democrats to drum up the most left leaning liberals in their party to get excited about the next election where it will be Clinton vs. whoever wins the clown show over at the Republican tent, and then they'll vote for Hillary. Hillary will seem less painful to vote for too as her rhetoric will have to swing to the left at times to compete with Bernie but we'll get as much change as Obama gave us if she won.

3. Remember all these things were also said about Obama and realize it would be even harder for Sanders to get what he wants passed even if he did miraculously win. Then remember he's that guy you endorsed and you'll end up back at square one trying to tell people he's not a socialist. Half my time is spent trying to tell people Obama is not a socialist, I could only imagine how annoying it'd be if Bernie wins.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Just got into a discussion about Bernie Sanders (I know, I know, he's a reformist, spare me the trite dismissals) and the person I was talking to basically said that voting is pointless, because it' just a distraction from the "real" struggle (whatever the fuck that means). I think that, unfortunately, a lot of people here agree with that sentiment.

The real struggle is the struggle of workers against capitalism. And yes, unlike TFU I would say that includes (many) wage struggles. The point is that this proletarian struggle is distinguished from electoral dead-ends, not so much by the object of the struggle (as a bourgeois windbag like Sanders can claim to support pretty much anything), but in the independent action of the working class against capitalism and against the bourgeois state (as opposed to the working class backing one section of the bourgeoisie).

I'm also amazed that you would call pointing out that Sanders is not a socialist (in fact calling him a reformist is far too generous; there were people in the G. W. Bush administration that were closer to socialism than he is) a "trite dismissal". Watching the soft left milieu is sometimes like watching a man smash his head against a wall, constantly complaining about his horrible headache, and when you point out that maybe he should stop hitting his head against the wall, he gets angry at you.


I countered with the argument that that kind o ultra-leftism is counter-productive and dangerous, because if we don't fight for workers on a ll fronts, we lose. Even if a socialist candidate doesn't win, it raises awareness of the idea.

You're not fighting for workers by voting for Sanders. Anyone who governs the bourgeois state will be constrained by the influence of the bourgeoisie. Even if they are called Sanders, Nader, Kemble, whatever. Hell, for the last couple of days we have had the opportunity to witness the complete disgrace of the Greek premier Tsipras, agreeing (with some token noise about how he was forced etc. etc.) to a plan even the IMF opposes as too committed to austerity. And in the wake of that people still hold on to electoral illusions!

And yes, the Sanders candidacy raises awareness... of a "socialism" that is just plain capitalism, not even the sort of ordered capitalism the old social-democracy of the fifties advocated.


I just think that the same people who dismiss electoral fights are often the same ones who dismiss Occupy for "not being radical enough" or whatever their criticism is, even when it's one of the few mass movements to take form in the last few decades.

And what has Occupy accomplished, except that it reinvigorated the careers of some dinosaurs of the old soft left like Hedges?

[John Nada]

Shit, if you want a large ultra-leftist group:
http://chineseposters.net/images/e15-125.jpg
Unmasked the revisionist capitalist roader Sanders! Down with the DNC clique!:lol:
That's basically the entirety of my position... That using reforms and bourgeois parliament is a tactic that can only be supplementary to the broader class struggle. Don't know what we're arguing about.We were arguing:confused:?
1. This guy isn't a socialist. Lots of people are saying that Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist opens up space to talk about socialism. I think it's true, people on tv talk about how Bernie is a socialist, too far to the left for America, all of that stuff. The problem is people aren't actually getting to know what socialism is through all of this so if we want something positive out of this experience we're going to have to take the stance of correcting people about what socialism is after all the different things they've been told about it, to give people better information about socialism. So already if you're trying to build a socialist movement from within you're going to have to stand in contradiction with Bernie amongst Bernie Sanders supporters.Hey, if he's willing to play pinata for the imperialist-capitalist right to make Clinton look good, supposedly to "raise awareness about socialism", why not spread awareness about "true socialism", and not be the left cover band for the bourgeoisie's presidential birthday party?:grin:

[The Feral Underclass]

Shit, if you want a large ultra-leftist group:
http://chineseposters.net/images/e15-125.jpg

Love it! :wub:

[Working Class Hero]

I can understand not wanting to support Sanders, but my friend said he wouldn't support Eugene Debs or Kshama Sawant either, which is stupid. I'd rather have Kshama Sawant running with a major socialist party, but she isn't.

So some of you seriously wouldn't vote for Eugene Debs? That's crazy.

[#FF0000]

I can understand not wanting to support Sanders, but my friend said he wouldn't support Eugene Debs or Kshama Sawant either, which is stupid. I'd rather have Kshama Sawant running with a major socialist party, but she isn't.

Well, I'm ambivalent about Kshama Sawant as well.


So some of you seriously wouldn't vote for Eugene Debs? That's crazy.

Well, if I were alive then I might've, but even then I gotta question what the plan is when the Socialist Party doesn't even have seats in legislature (which in itself would be a problem if it did, as it means taking power on Capital's terms). I know Debs took a lot of cues from Kautsky and so he likely had some ideas about the "strategy of patience" but I don't see how that could be applied in the United States' winner-take-all system

[Thirsty Crow]

I can understand not wanting to support Sanders, but my friend said he wouldn't support Eugene Debs or Kshama Sawant either, which is stupid. I'd rather have Kshama Sawant running with a major socialist party, but she isn't.

So some of you seriously wouldn't vote for Eugene Debs? That's crazy.


Eh, so not only is this infantile disorder quite pathetic, but people suffering from it are crazy? Makes sense, no doubt (it's in the term d'oh). And yeah, I'm crazy.
So this on top of heaps of condescension:

I just think that the same people who dismiss electoral fights are often the same ones who dismiss Occupy for "not being radical enough" or whatever their criticism is, even when it's one of the few mass movements to take form in the last few decades. I feel like a lot of people on this board (and this has been my criticism of RevLeft for a long time) is that a lot of us are armchair revolutionaries who don't want to get out on the streets, don't want to organize with other workers in whatever capacity, don't want to support socialistic candidates.... don't want to do anything except read hundred-year-old books by dead white guys and prattle on about theories that don't seem to work. It's pathetic. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to make a better world for me and my fellow workers, whether it's "revolutionary" or not.

Bravo. You want to make a better world for yourself and fellow workers. Must be that not voting for Sanders and Sawant actually betrays others as...well, of more sinister intetions. Or colossal stupidity.

But no, not really. Apart from what I've written, and other people as well, you could have no actual information on my activity, right? I surely hope so. But no, I'm not going to play this game as indicating the delusion at work here, constructed out of fragments of conversation online, should be enough. Of course, it's enough in the absence of either your wilingness or capacity to deal with actual arguments.

Oh yeah, one more thing. This is an international forum actually. Something you don't seem to be aware of as your US centered rant makes possible.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I can understand not wanting to support Sanders, but my friend said he wouldn't support Eugene Debs or Kshama Sawant either, which is stupid. I'd rather have Kshama Sawant running with a major socialist party, but she isn't.

So some of you seriously wouldn't vote for Eugene Debs? That's crazy.
I'd vote for Eugene Debs but trying to capture the executive branch before you even have a senator to support you means gaining that place would mean almost nothing but gauge how much support your party/ideology can get as #FF0000 pointed out. There's big differences between the two also like the fact that Debs ran on the Socialist Party ticket while in a jail cell.

Voting at this point for a socialist candidate for president is useless except for seeing how much support you can get (and you have to ask yourself if that's really worth the time when those resources could go to actually building up movements). This isn't the same as Sawant running for a city council seat...

[Bala Perdida]

I can understand not wanting to support Sanders, but my friend said he wouldn't support Eugene Debs or Kshama Sawant either, which is stupid. I'd rather have Kshama Sawant running with a major socialist party, but she isn't.

So some of you seriously wouldn't vote for Eugene Debs? That's crazy.Crazy? With an environment full of day by day insurrectionary terrorism you think not voting is crazy? When you actually have the system in retreat you think voting is the best option? Fuck that! Freedom for Berkman! Long live Sacco and Vanzetti! Fuck the ballots. We don't want crumbs, WE WANT EVERYTHING!

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Well yeah, if your objective is to build a revolutionary movement then I would imagine that 'growing your numbers' is an important factor.
And your objective is what exactly; to keep the revolutionary movement small and insignificant? I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it was just a ridiculous deflection.

[BIXX]

And your objective is what exactly; to keep the revolutionary movement small and insignificant? I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it was just a ridiculous deflection.

Maybe stop telling yourself that "the movement" is important.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Maybe stop telling yourself that "the movement" is important.
No. The movement to destroy capitalism and usher in socialism will always be important to me.

[Sharia Lawn]

I think TFU's concern is with the opportunists who compromise every sort of revolutionary principle in their quest to create a majority for socialism before a revolutionary situation develops.

TFU: the goal of proper Leninist organizations is to use the class struggle in normal times for training and selecting cadre who can lead the revolution. A majority for socialism won't develop until the workers take power. Until then, the best you can hope for in a revolutionary situation is a majority for transitional measures.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Just got into a discussion about Bernie Sanders (I know, I know, he's a reformist, spare me the trite dismissals) and the person I was talking to basically said that voting is pointless, because it' just a distraction from the "real" struggle (whatever the fuck that means). I think that, unfortunately, a lot of people here agree with that sentiment.

I countered with the argument that that kind o ultra-leftism is counter-productive and dangerous, because if we don't fight for workers on a ll fronts, we lose. Even if a socialist candidate doesn't win, it raises awareness of the idea. Ultra-leftism frames the worker's struggle as irrelevant to most people.

The idea that the KPD in weimar Germany should have put all their resources into the Rotkampferbund and abandoned elections is laughable: the military would have shot them all down, and Hitler would have become Chancellor even faster.

The idea of Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales abandoning elections and becoming full-time social movement activists is equally laughable: another reactionary caudillo would have become leader and jailed or executed them.

Thoughts?

Outside of an actual revolutionary situation, participation in bourgeois parliaments and elections is futile and a justification of the system. It's also proven that during a revolutionary situation, it is a failed strategy.

[Guardia Rossa]

Did someone unlocked this coffin? Please people, reformism ain't neither left neither socialist, its center-left at the most.

So please seal this coffin and bury it under the ocean.

[The Feral Underclass]

And your objective is what exactly; to keep the revolutionary movement small and insignificant?

My objective is communism.

You keep talking about this movement but you're till yet to explain its function and importance. We know it is a brand that requires numbers, but so far I don't understand why? Are you actually going to explain it or not?


I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it was just a ridiculous deflection.

I'm not really sure what it is you think I'm trying to deflect. You think and talk like a business. That's not s deflection, that is reality.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

My objective is communism.

You keep talking about this movement but you're till yet to explain its function and importance.
The function of the 'movement to destroy capitalism and usher in socialism' is to do exactly what it says on the tin. Tell me more about how you feel that movement should develop in order to be successful. How important is it to you? What function do you think the ultra left plays in destroying capitalism and ushering in socialism?


We know it is a brand that requires numbers, but so far I don't understand why?
Do we? I'm not sure why you keep bringing up 'brands'. All I've said is that a revolution needs numbers in order to be successful, something that should be obvious to anyone who's not an idiot.


I'm not really sure what it is you think I'm trying to deflect. You think and talk like a business. That's not s deflection, that is reality.
You're deflecting because I asked how the ultra left would gather numbers in order to ensure a revolutionary insurrection would be successful and then you talk about 'brands' as if it's some brilliant piece of analysis. You've mentioned that the conditions of capitalism itself create the very experiences workers need to come to socialist ideas, or however you put it, but if that were the case then you should find nothing wrong with reforms since reforms do not ultimately change the conditions of capitalism and therefore workers are still experiencing the very things that should make them die hard ultra leftists in your analysis.

Ultimately I think your revolutionary vanguard of the ultra leftists cannot grow to the point where insurrection to destroy capitalism would be successful because you are too detached from the realities that workers face day to day due to your refusal, your fear, to engage with workers in the contemporary conditions and conciousness.

[The Feral Underclass]

GiantMonkeyMan,

I intend to respond to your last post, but I am currently too busy with work to write out a response at the moment.

[RedSonRising]

Leaving aside the debate on the relevance of reform struggles to a broader revolutionary struggle, Sanders does provide the revolutionary left with a few opportunities. On one hand, Sanders' modest but growing exposure can further reveal the futility of the two-party system and the winner-take-all structure that perpetuates it. On the other hand, Sanders' proposed reforms have been encouraging otherwise apolitical young people to think about issues like prison reform, the war on drugs, economic inequality, the barbarity of agreements like NAFTA, which are all the depressing symptoms of capitalism that the working class experiences, and getting them to think about things in a systemic way. It's not immediately converting them to socialism, but it is valuable. Whether in ultimate success or failure, Sanders is normalizing critiques of capitalism (or at least the many moving parts which, at their core, stem from capitalism).

I don't understand this false dichotomy between voting for someone like Sanders in the absence of a united and mobilized socialist front to raise consciousness. You lose nothing voting for sanders. Going all in an campaigning for him, sure, that's a commitment to reformism. But simply voting doesn't necessarily sacrifice the other organizing you're doing on the ground. You don't have to abandon the fight for socialism just to give a small push to a reformist that slightly widens the space in which realistic alternatives to the current social order can be had.

Abstaining from possibly improving people's lives dramatically now and raising consciousness through one particular political avenue because of rigid notions of what revolutionary change looks like (that seem totally abstract to the average worker) will always be counter-productive. You cannot overthrow the ruling class by abstaining from all social spheres relevant to current working class lives. Lenin didn't offer people dialectics and a theory of stages, he offered Peace, Land, and Bread. We are losing, people; we are in a state of meager consciousness. There is no direct relationship between how hardcore you are as a revolutionary in your own mind and the success of socialist revolution. Social transformation is a complex thing and electoral politics will constantly be injected into political conversations. Ignoring that reality is defeatism.

[Luís Henrique]

Merkins, "voting" does not translate into "voting for the Democrats".

If voting is so unconsequential, why do the ruling classes put such an effort to disenfranchise working class voters (https://www.google.com.br/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=electoral+disenfranchisement+in+the+US)?

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Jacob]

I wouldn't say it's mainly an ultra-left position. Half the UK doesn't vote, I wouldn't say have the UK must been these ultra-leftists.

[Working Class Hero]

Let me make this clear: we should NOT abandon radical organizing for reformism. That's stupid. If anything, we need to radicaize our union building.

Still, by totally ignoring reform -like the $15/hr minimum wage, ending "Right to Work," etc.- makes us irrelevant, which is what I want to avoid.

[#FF0000]

Let me make this clear: we should NOT abandon radical organizing for reformism. That's stupid. If anything, we need to radicaize our union building.

Still, by totally ignoring reform -like the $15/hr minimum wage, ending "Right to Work," etc.- makes us irrelevant, which is what I want to avoid.

I agree but the mistake is allying with reformist political parties in order to achieve this. Everything we do should be with the aim of working class independence.

[Sewer Socialist]

Let me make this clear: we should NOT abandon radical organizing for reformism. That's stupid. If anything, we need to radicaize our union building.

Still, by totally ignoring reform -like the $15/hr minimum wage, ending "Right to Work," etc.- makes us irrelevant, which is what I want to avoid.

Voting is not the only way to end this, and organizing voters is not the only sort of organizing - in fact, it's probably the least radical form of organizing the left engages in.

It seems that there has been much more success through direct action, demonstrations, one-day strikes, etc. than through nominating candidates on these platforms. The USA's electoral structure makes sure 3rd parties have a difficult time.

[BIXX]

No. The movement to destroy capitalism and usher in socialism will always be important to me.

But the movement won't help you accomplish your goals.

[The Feral Underclass]

The function of the 'movement to destroy capitalism and usher in socialism' is to do exactly what it says on the tin. Tell me more about how you feel that movement should develop in order to be successful. How important is it to you? What function do you think the ultra left plays in destroying capitalism and ushering in socialism?

It is entirely unimportant to me because I don't subscribe to a substitutionist attitude towards political organising. I don't believe there is a legitimate, revolutionary need to have a "movement" to achieve social revolution (if by movement you mean a political entity). In fact, I go so far as to argue that "movements" usually act as a mediating tool between the class as itself and its revolutionary potential, and therefore cause more harm than good. The reason for that is because in order to build a movement, the movement has to prioritise the building of itself. The focus is then on the movement being built, which leads us into reformism, rather than on the class being an independent, autonomous revolutionary agent, which is vital if you wish to achieve legitimate social revolution. Ultimately the social revolution is an economic process, not a political one, so while political organisation is necessary, it should not be a goal in-and-of itself for the class.

I often like to quote Johannes Agnoli in these discussions because I think he sums up the argument well:


"The autonomy I mean is class autonomy...This form of autonomy has two meanings. First, it is a class movement, a movement of labour against capital, a movement of workers as subjects of production against workers as objects of valorisation. At the same time, autonomy goes beyond the workplace: it describes a mass movement against the capitalist reduction of everyone to consumer objects. In both cases, autonomy means an attempt to free oneself from the logic of capital...Autonomy does not mean to reject the principle of organisation. It means to reject a certain form of organisation: a form that prioritises the interest of organisation over the interests of the class."

Just to be clear, I recognise that Agnoli uses the term "movement." When he talks about movement here, he is talking about the class as an independent entity moving in its interests against capital and against reproduction etcetera. This is obviously fundamentally different to the leftist notion of movement as a political entity.


Do we? I'm not sure why you keep bringing up 'brands'. All I've said is that a revolution needs numbers in order to be successful, something that should be obvious to anyone who's not an idiot.

I think it's perfectly obvious what I'm alluding to. There are plenty of brands trying to grow numbers, as you put it, whether it's the SWP, the ISO, the SP, the CPGB-PCC and so on and so forth. Each one is trying to build a mass political entity, whether you call it a movement or a party -- for every different political organisation, the objective is to "grow numbers." Each of these brands have their own mechanisms in which to do that and more importantly their own motivations. The primary one being control. Each brand wishes to grow numbers in order that they can control events and subsume the class into its political positions, praxis and authority. This is done using the premise that the working class requires leadership and formal political structures in order for it to be effective. Ultimately the numbers growing is based on the assumption that having lots of people associated or voluntarily subservient to your brand means a step closer to success.


You're deflecting because I asked how the ultra left would gather numbers in order to ensure a revolutionary insurrection would be successful and then you talk about 'brands' as if it's some brilliant piece of analysis. You've mentioned that the conditions of capitalism itself create the very experiences workers need to come to socialist ideas, or however you put it, but if that were the case then you should find nothing wrong with reforms since reforms do not ultimately change the conditions of capitalism and therefore workers are still experiencing the very things that should make them die hard ultra leftists in your analysis.

I've just gone back through the posts and I can't see where you asked that question before you began accusing me of deflecting. Perhaps it is something you meant to ask or think you asked, but as far as I can see, it is not a question you actually asked.

When you talk about the ultraleft "gathering numbers" you are once again working from the premise that "gathering numbers" is both necessary and desirable. It is not the function of a political organisation to "gather numbers." The "numbers" already exist: It's called the proletariat. You don't need to subsume them into a political entity in order for them to be in existence


Ultimately I think your revolutionary vanguard of the ultra leftists cannot grow to the point where insurrection to destroy capitalism would be successful because you are too detached from the realities that workers face day to day due to your refusal, your fear, to engage with workers in the contemporary conditions and conciousness.

I can't tell if the term "revolutionary vanguard of the ultra leftists" is a joke or whether it is what you consider to be a genuine understanding of what is being discussed here.

The "ultraleftists" as you call them don't need to "grow" in order for insurrection to emerge. The class will move by itself irrespective of a political organisation or its leadership. No revolutionary insurrection has ever been created from above or instigated by a political leadership, it emerges because of social forces and the class working in its own interests. This isn't fear or refusal to engage with "the workers," it is acknowledgement that "the workers" don't require a cumbersome, substitutional political movement to exist within in order to achieve their historic objective.

The purpose of political organisation is to prepare, to propagandise, to always keep a militant, radical communist line, critique and defend the class against our enemies, and to assist the class both practically and ideologically in struggle; to instigate, to foster insurrection, provide revolutionary solutions and to win the argument for communism. It is not to lead, it is not to mediate, it is not to substitute, nor is to subsume -- it is to act simply as a conduit for communist measures.

As Bakunin said, in a rather unwieldly way,


"...revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They make themselves; they are produced by the force of circumstances, the movement of facts and events. They receive a long preparation in the deep, instinctive consciousness of the masses, then they burst forth, often seemingly triggered by trivial causes. All that a well-organised society can do is, first, to assist at the birth of a revolution by spreading among the masses ideas which give expression to their instincts, and to organise, not the army of the Revolution – the people alone should always be that army – but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people."

[The Feral Underclass]

This article may be useful for people if they wish to understand a specific ultraleft position on what is being discussed in this thread. It also neatly articulates many of the points I am making.


"Communism is produced: that means that it is not the effect of a pure act of will, nor the mere consequence of circumstances which make any other outcome impossible. Every communist measure is the effect of a particular will. This will does not at all need to take as its object the creation of communism in its most general sense, but only in its immediate aspect, local and useful for the struggle. So the universal adoption of the communist idea as a kind of general, abstract principle to be realised is not a necessary precondition for the concrete production of communism. On the other hand, the social activity of the production of communism has its own consciousness; that is to say that in a period of communisation, when communist measures are linking up and becoming widespread, the overall pattern of what is being established becomes obvious to everyone."

Communist Measures - Léon de Mattis (https://libcom.org/library/communist-measures-leon-mattis)

[Luís Henrique]

I agree but the mistake is allying with reformist political parties in order to achieve this. Everything we do should be with the aim of working class independence.

Yes. But something that doesn't exist cannot be independent, so we should struggle for the class' existence first place.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes. But something that doesn't exist cannot be independent, so we should struggle for the class' existence first place.

Luís Henrique

The working class definitely exists.

[Luís Henrique]

The working class definitely exists.

But is unexisting at a fast pace.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

But is unexisting at a fast pace.

Luís Henrique

No.

[Luís Henrique]

No.

It depends, of course, of what the class is.

If you mean the class-object, then it definitely exists and cannot disappear as long as society is capitalist.

But then the class-object is not, and cannot be, ... independent, in any real sence.

Luís Henrique

[Prof. Oblivion]

Yes. But something that doesn't exist cannot be independent, so we should struggle for the class' existence first place.

Luís Henrique

Agree with this. Leftists are so concerned with "remaining independent" from reformist parties that they don't realize that there isn't really a movement beyond reformism. When it comes to organizational political affiliations your choices as a revolutionary are between opportunism and ultra-leftism.

Reformist parties don't care if you're allied with them as long as you're not rocking the boat, and if you are they kick you out and you're isolated and alone as a tiny sect. Neither path affords a way forward.

[Sharia Lawn]

How is the working class losing its existence? Where is the empirical proof of this? And doesn't this also mean that capital is losing its existence?

[Luís Henrique]

How is the working class losing its existence? Where is the empirical proof of this? And doesn't this also mean that capital is losing its existence?


If you mean the class-object, then it definitely exists and cannot disappear as long as society is capitalist.

But then the class-object is completely irrelevant for the issue of a revolution; it is only the necessary complement of capital, a gear in the machine, and only produces surplus-value, not political unrest.

Luís Henrique

[Sharia Lawn]

I don't think the class-object is irrelevant at all. If you dont have it you arent going to have a socialist revolution. Make sense?

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think the class-object is irrelevant at all. If you dont have it you arent going to have a socialist revolution. Make sense?

It isn't irrelevant in the sence that you cannot have a class-process unless you have a class-object. But you cannot appeal to the class-object against the reformism of the class-process; it hasn't answers for such kind of problem.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

But then the class-object is not, and cannot be, ... independent, in any real sence.

Luís Henrique

But it only needs to be independent in the sense that it is acting in its interest. Reformism is not in the interest of the class.

[Prof. Oblivion]

But it only needs to be independent in the sense that it is acting in its interest. Reformism is not in the interest of the class.

It most certainly is in the interest of the class, it's just a short term and limited interest.

[The Feral Underclass]

It most certainly is in the interest of the class, it's just a short term and limited interest.

It is not in the interest of the class to have the conditions of their own exploitation reinforced. That is a reactionary position.

[Decolonize The Left]

It most certainly is in the interest of the class, it's just a short term and limited interest.

On the contrary, it is in the interest of the immediate well-being of individual members of a given class, but not of the class as a whole (as TFU notes above quite clearly).

[BorisBandit]

Agree with this. Leftists are so concerned with "remaining independent" from reformist parties that they don't realize that there isn't really a movement beyond reformism. When it comes to organizational political affiliations your choices as a revolutionary are between opportunism and ultra-leftism.

Reformist parties don't care if you're allied with them as long as you're not rocking the boat, and if you are they kick you out and you're isolated and alone as a tiny sect. Neither path affords a way forward.


Nuts. That's self-defeatist. The choice isn't between opportunism & ultra-leftism. (Ultra-leftism is left opportunism.) So, incipiently you're suggesting the only choice is opportunism. You can't mean that. What about a revolutionary party with a mass-line for crying out loud! & if people aren't willing to rock the boat of bourgeois politics as a tactic in their agitation then what's the point? So what if *they* kick you out? The ultimate aim here is to kick them the hell out. Overthrow this system.

[Thirsty Crow]

Nuts. That's self-defeatist. The choice isn't between opportunism & ultra-leftism. (Ultra-leftism is left opportunism.) So, incipiently you're suggesting the only choice is opportunism. You can't mean that. What about a revolutionary party with a mass-line for crying out loud! & if people aren't willing to rock the boat of bourgeois politics as a tactic in their agitation then what's the point? So what if *they* kick you out? The ultimate aim here is to kick them the hell out. Overthrow this system.
In what way is "ultra-leftism" a kind of opportunism?

[Luís Henrique]

But it only needs to be independent in the sense that it is acting in its interest.

But if it is acting in its own interests, then it is not the class-object, it is something else.


Reformism is not in the interest of the class.

And who decides what is in the interest of the class? The Central Committee? Lenin when invoked in a spiritist session? We just look at Reality, and Goddess Reality answers back?

In order for the class to be independent, it has to be able to decide what its interests are. And if it does so, it can always happen - after all, it is just a human entity, not a supernatural one - that it gets it wrong.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What about a revolutionary party with a mass-line for crying out loud!

It sounds fine for me. Where can I get one? Do they sell those things at Wal-Mart?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

On the contrary, it is in the interest of the immediate well-being of individual members of a given class, but not of the class as a whole (as TFU notes above quite clearly).

So, the class is an entity apart from its members? How is it that? Can it have an interest of itself that is directly contrary to the interests of all its members?

... and how am I the mystic metaphysician?

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

But if it is acting in its own interests, then it is not the class-object, it is something else.

I don't see why that's true.


And who decides what is in the interest of the class? The Central Committee? Lenin when invoked in a spiritist session? We just look at Reality, and Goddess Reality answers back?

In order for the class to be independent, it has to be able to decide what its interests are. And if it does so, it can always happen - after all, it is just a human entity, not a supernatural one - that it gets it wrong.

Luís Henrique

It is not a question of deciding anything. What is in the interest of the class is to overcome our historical antagonism with the ruling class through the production of communism and the self-abolition of the proletariat. That is what is in its interest. This is a historical mission.

Various pretenders of the left claim they know what is in the interest of the class. The class itself argues for what is in its interest even when it specifically damages their ability to be independent, but communists understand history (at least they should do) and how history has shaped the reality we inhabit. If we look with even a cursory glance it is evident that reformism does not serve any interest for the class if we accept that the production of communism is in the interest of the class.

You do want communism, right?

[Luís Henrique]

It is not a question of deciding anything. What is in the interest of the class is to overcome our historical antagonism with the ruling class through the production of communism and the self-abolition of the proletariat. That is what is in its interest. This is a historical mission.

Two things here:

first, "interests" and "historical missions" are things of a very different nature. An interest is usually something that we understand as coming from "within" the person or group of persons that hold that interest. If it is in the interest of the working class to abolish class society, it is because, in the views of the working class, it would be better off in a classless society than it is now. "Historical missions" on the other hand suppose some kind of blind "historical necessity" that must be fulfilled for some reason (and at the practical request of some hypostasised entity, like the Geist, God, Progress, Reason, Capitalised History, etc.) It is not a necessity of people or any other entity that we usually understand to have "necessities", but a necessity for an abstraction.

Second, even if we ignore that aspect of your vision that makes us servants of an abstract inexistent "Subject", it is easy to say that our interest is the abolition of classes. It is. But the problem that tears the left apart in agony is to identify which precise actions lead to the abolition of classes, and which lead to the reinforcement of the class society. We can put up a political party, put into its program "We shall abolish the social classes once we win the elections", and well, this may or may not be conducive to the abolition of social classes - ie, it may or may not be in our interests. Who reasons about this? Some material subject, such as a Central Committee? The very conditions of our existence - the fact that we overwork ourselves daily to enrich a small group of parasites - make it obvious for us, as if our "proletariness" suddenly acquires a mind of itself and starts thinking on our behalf?


Various pretenders of the left claim they know what is in the interest of the class.

Certainly, but how do we tell the false prophets apart?


The class itself argues for what is in its interest even when it specifically damages their ability to be independent,

So, if the interest of the class is to abolish class society, how can the class have an interest in something that damages our ability to be independent (and consequently, our ability to abolish classes)?

We are back to the conundrum: the class has interests that it doesn't know it has (which seems to me a contradiction in its own terms, but so be it); ergo, someone has to tell the class, from the outside, what our interests really, actually, in earnest, are.

Who?


but communists understand history (at least they should do) and how history has shaped the reality we inhabit. If we look with even a cursory glance it is evident that reformism does not serve any interest for the class if we accept that the production of communism is in the interest of the class.

Yes, to me, it is evident that "reformism" does not serve the long term interests of my class - even if I am actually not sure of what "reformism" means in this context (voting? setting up political parties? demanding better wages? setting up cooperative enterprises in which we would be our own bosses? demonstrating? going on strike? "Reformism", after all, is, I believe, a general attitude towards society and class struggle, not a precise strategy, tactic, or set of tactics).

But I, alone, am not the working class, and so what I personally think is largely irrelevant. It is only as long as I am an active part of the working class that my opinion carries any weight. And then, of course, by "being an active part of the working class" I don't mean "actively" driving trucks, carrying freights, or doing paperwork for the State: I mean actively taking part in our struggles. In other words, not being part of the class-object, but of the class-process.


You do want communism, right?

As soon as possible, and with cream, please.

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

Certainly, but how do we tell the false prophets apart?




So, if the interest of the class is to abolish class society, how can the class have an interest in something that damages our ability to be independent (and consequently, our ability to abolish classes)?

We are back to the conundrum: the class has interests that it doesn't know it has (which seems to me a contradiction in its own terms, but so be it); ergo, someone has to tell the class, from the outside, what our interests really, actually, in earnest, are.

I don't think there's an actual problem or a conundrum here - the concept employed is defective. The concept of objective class interest which is being used without referring to any such objectivity. It's basically a piece of Platonic essentialism and nothing more. But what's troubling and where the conundrum takes root for people who employ it is precisely this question of prophets (with neat political implications, such as Trotsky's derision of striking workers in the USSR, at the beginning of the 20s, and proclamations of long term and short term - opportunistic, immediate, essentially blind - interests).

[The Feral Underclass]

Two things here:

first, "interests" and "historical missions" are things of a very different nature. An interest is usually something that we understand as coming from "within" the person or group of persons that hold that interest. If it is in the interest of the working class to abolish class society, it is because, in the views of the working class, it would be better off in a classless society than it is now. "Historical missions" on the other hand suppose some kind of blind "historical necessity" that must be fulfilled for some reason (and at the practical request of some hypostasised entity, like the Geist, God, Progress, Reason, Capitalised History, etc.) It is not a necessity of people or any other entity that we usually understand to have "necessities", but a necessity for an abstraction.

That last sentence makes no sense to me. I understand the distinction and I'm unsure why you're outlining it. In any case, I don't suppose a historical necessity, I can identify the existence of one based on inhabiting objective reality and understanding history. The advancement of humankind depends upon the abolition of classes. It's not a non-binary position. Either you wish the majority of humankind remain burdened with reaction, incertitude and destitution, or you wish for the majority of humankind to advance into a new epoch that sees their total liberation from present conditions. I choose the latter. And just as well, since the development of human history and the progression of humankind has been such that it has provided that opportunity — almost inevitably some might argue. The working class are exclusively positioned to advance humankind, primarily because we are the ones to gain the most from it. It is both our object as workers and the subject of us as workers that provides us the impetus (read interest) to move humanity forward. It is the profound and fundamental task given to our class by history. Whether we come to take it up and whether we are successful against our enemies is yet to be seen. Recognising this historical mission/necessity/task — or whatever — is not akin to some quasi-religious abstraction or mysticism as you imply. It is the objective reality of history.


Second, even if we ignore that aspect of your vision that makes us servants of an abstract inexistent "Subject", it is easy to say that our interest is the abolition of classes. It is. But the problem that tears the left apart in agony is to identify which precise actions lead to the abolition of classes, and which lead to the reinforcement of the class society. We can put up a political party, put into its program "We shall abolish the social classes once we win the elections", and well, this may or may not be conducive to the abolition of social classes - ie, it may or may not be in our interests. Who reasons about this? Some material subject, such as a Central Committee? The very conditions of our existence - the fact that we overwork ourselves daily to enrich a small group of parasites - make it obvious for us, as if our "proletariness" suddenly acquires a mind of itself and starts thinking on our behalf?

The subject of the worker, just like the objective nature of our antagonism with the bourgeoisie, isn’t inexistent, nor is it an abstraction. We exist as a subject: the worker. It is defined through the objective nature of class antagonism and therefore defines what our task is.

The problem with the left tearing itself apart isn't the agony to identify which precise action leads to revolution, it is the very assumption that there requires the necessity to identify which action leads to revolution in the first place. The entire premise of your argument is that finding an action that leads to revolution is necessary. The actions of the left are not what lead to revolution. No ‘action’ of the left has ever lead to revolution nor will ever lead to revolution.

The antagonism that we workers experience on a daily basis is what leads the class to revolt. It is in moments in which that antagonism intensifies that we see the class move and it does so irrespective of the existence of any machinery of the left. We cannot predict it, we cannot instigate it; it happens spontaneously and without warning. The purpose of the communists is to then give expression to that instinct to revolt. As I said before, it is to prepare, to propagandise, to always keep a militant, radical communist line, critique and defend the class against our enemies, and to assist the class both practically and ideologically in struggle; to escalate, to foster insurrection, provide revolutionary solutions and to win the argument for communism — it is to act as a conduit for communist measures. Reformism, be it any of the things you list below, therefore has no place; it inhibits the ability of the class to move when it wishes to intensify the already existent antagonisms by imposing mediating structures of power over it. It prevents the class from moving towards insurrection, which is a necessary part of revolt. For example, if the class is moving towards insurrection, then what need does it have for better wages? If it is not moving towards insurrection, how does attaining better wages achieve that? Furthermore, even when the class seeks base mentalities to justify the antagonism, such as right opportunism, or resigns itself to that antagonism by accepting bourgeois reality, the role of communists is not to obscure that reality with reformism or to offer left opportunism, but to win the argument for communism and for insurrection.


Certainly, but how do we tell the false prophets apart?

The fact they are prophets is what demonstrates them as false.


So, if the interest of the class is to abolish class society, how can the class have an interest in something that damages our ability to be independent (and consequently, our ability to abolish classes)?

We are back to the conundrum: the class has interests that it doesn't know it has (which seems to me a contradiction in its own terms, but so be it); ergo, someone has to tell the class, from the outside, what our interests really, actually, in earnest, are.

Who?

The class can have false interests — that is the power of bourgeois ideological hegemony. It is in the interest of our class enemies to obfuscate the true interests of those it seeks to maintain dominance over. Reformism is part of that process. Showing (or as you say telling) what our true class interests are requires communists to be communists and to argue for communists measures, whether that is within struggles that emerge or whether it is outside of struggles (for examples struggles for false interests).


Yes, to me, it is evident that "reformism" does not serve the long term interests of my class - even if I am actually not sure of what "reformism" means in this context (voting? setting up political parties? demanding better wages? setting up cooperative enterprises in which we would be our own bosses? demonstrating? going on strike? "Reformism", after all, is, I believe, a general attitude towards society and class struggle, not a precise strategy, tactic, or set of tactics).

But I, alone, am not the working class, and so what I personally think is largely irrelevant. It is only as long as I am an active part of the working class that my opinion carries any weight. And then, of course, by "being an active part of the working class" I don't mean "actively" driving trucks, carrying freights, or doing paperwork for the State: I mean actively taking part in our struggles. In other words, not being part of the class-object, but of the class-process.

The object and subject of the worker are not different. They only appear different because the ideology of the ruling class is the hegemonic world view and obscures the object of the worker with its subject. Worker doesn’t see its subject as being what its object is, it sees its subjects in ways shaped by bourgeois ideology and social relations. Reformism — ultimately — seeks to continue that obfuscation. Nothing is possible for the class while the bourgeoisie exist! Nothing. Saying so is reactionary and being part of the working class for a communist means being a communist. That means arguing for communism and communist measures inside and outside struggle.

[Luís Henrique]

It's not a non-binary position. Either you wish the majority of humankind remain burdened with reaction, incertitude and destitution, or you wish for the majority of humankind to advance into a new epoch that sees their total liberation from present conditions.

Or, as probably 99.99% of mankind, you don't understand what causes incertitude and destitution, or what is needed to liberate ourselves from these conditions. Ie, it certainly is a non-binary.


I choose the latter.

And so do I. Why are we disgreeing, then? Because it is a non-binary. Both of us want to advance into a new epoch that will see our total liberation from present conditions. But we have a different understanding of what those present conditions are, or of what it takes to liberate ourselves from them, or even, and more probably, of who are "ourselves".


The subject of the worker, just like the objective nature of our antagonism with the bourgeoisie, isn’t inexistent, nor is it an abstraction. We exist as a subject: the worker. It is defined through the objective nature of class antagonism and therefore defines what our task is.

This makes us an object. The object of exploitation and oppression at the hands of capital; the raw material upon which capital (re)builds the world to conform with its needs and whims. What makes (may make) us a subject is our fight against such condition. But to abolish that condition, we need to negate our "objective" existence as playthings of capital. Sure, "the objecive nature of class antagonism" sets the conditions for such a move; but it also sets the conditions under which we will try to assert our existence as "dignified" playthings of capital. And chosing between these paths requires a conscious collective decision.


The problem with the left tearing itself apart isn't the agony to identify which precise action leads to revolution, it is the very assumption that there requires the necessity to identify which action leads to revolution in the first place. The entire premise of your argument is that finding an action that leads to revolution is necessary. The actions of the left are not what lead to revolution. No ‘action’ of the left has ever lead to revolution nor will ever lead to revolution.

No; but only actions of the working class will lead to the revolution. And these actions are still actions; they still need to be understood, defined, decided, and executed. No sort of automatic action magically exsudates from our subjection to capital.


The antagonism that we workers experience on a daily basis is what leads the class to revolt.

It is what leads the class to reformism. Even if it sometimes is rebellious, violent reformism.


It is in moments in which that antagonism intensifies that we see the class move and it does so irrespective of the existence of any machinery of the left. We cannot predict it, we cannot instigate it; it happens spontaneously and without warning. The purpose of the communists is to then give expression to that instinct to revolt.

What does "give expression to that instinct to revolt" mean? And why would an "instinct to revolt" need to be "expressed", beyond what the working class can express by itself, without the need for leftists, anarchists, communists, Leninists, et caterva?

Either we are consistently spontaneist, and deny the utility of a "left", or we understand that the class builds itself, and that "the left" is part and parcel of such self-building. But holding to spontaneism up to the brink of a revolution, and then suddenly introducing a strange need to "express revolutionary instincts", which for some stranger reason becomes the task of a "left ex machina" doesn't seem to make any sence to me.


As I said before, it is to prepare, to propagandise, to always keep a militant, radical communist line, critique and defend the class against our enemies, and to assist the class both practically and ideologically in struggle; to escalate, to foster insurrection, provide revolutionary solutions and to win the argument for communism — it is to act as a conduit for communist measures.

And this is openly contradictory to what you have previously stated. None of these, besides, can be done by "the left", much less by leftists sects and cults; either the class undertakes all of these tasks, or, in the event of a State crisis, we will explode into violence, but into meaningless violence ("sound and fury", if you want a Shakespearean inflection). To be done, those things presuppose an internal struggle within the class, in order to constitute it into a revolutionary subject.


Reformism, be it any of the things you list below, therefore has no place; it inhibits the ability of the class to move when it wishes to intensify the already existent antagonisms by imposing mediating structures of power over it. It prevents the class from moving towards insurrection, which is a necessary part of revolt. For example, if the class is moving towards insurrection, then what need does it have for better wages? If it is not moving towards insurrection, how does attaining better wages achieve that?

Evidently, if the class is in the process of starting an insurrection, better wages will be irrelevant. If it is not in the process of starting an insurrection, then attaining better wages help in a twofold way: first, it helps to maintain the class' ability to think and decide consciously (starving people are seldom to be expected to do intelligent things: even if they explode into revolt, it is going to be a revolt against starvation, not against the rule of capital; but they are more likely to demoralise themselves into finding individual and degrading "solutions" than to revolt). Second, the experience of fighting, winning, and losing, is essential to constitute the class as a subject. Without the discipline, the experience, the wheathering, the tactical and strategical abilities, the understanding of the workings of the extant order, that can only be developed by actual struggle, we won't be able to revolt against the rule of capital. Of course, this supposes better wages forcibly extracted from the bourgeois, not willing concessions on the part of the bosses. I hope you can see the difference.


The fact they are prophets is what demonstrates them as false.

And how exactly do we know they are prophets, and not communists?

From a strictly "workerist" position, they look very much the same.


The class can have false interests — that is the power of bourgeois ideological hegemony. It is in the interest of our class enemies to obfuscate the true interests of those it seeks to maintain dominance over. Reformism is part of that process. Showing (or as you say telling) what our true class interests are requires communists to be communists and to argue for communists measures, whether that is within struggles that emerge or whether it is outside of struggles (for examples struggles for false interests).

Your position supposes that reformism is something totally external to our class. In other words, we would all be revolutionaries, if not for the ideological machinery of the ruling class - schools, churches, press, cinema, etc. If they just shut up for a minute, we would realise what our "real", really real, interests are.

It seems to me an absurd position. Of course the ruling class won't stop producing "ideology" - moreso because it can embody it into commodies and sell it for a profit - but if those things didn't minimally resonate into us, it would be a waste of time. At some point, we will have to admit, there is a little bourgeois inside us, who dearly wants to be deluded by bourgeois ideological propaganda.

And this should be no surprise: we are, as a class, after all, sellers of a commodity: the weird and awesome commodity that is labour power. Like all sellers of commodities, we want a higher price for our commodity. That is the root of reformism: it comes from the inside of our common condition as a class; the bourgeois don't need to impose or trick it unto us; it springs out "naturally" from our very conditions of existence. We don't have any "revolutionary instinct", or, if we do, it has to compete, everyday and everywhere, with an equally, if not more, powerful "reformist instinct". In other words, we are, as a class-object, contradictory. That's why mere propaganda can't sway the class in one direction or other; the limits of the capitalist system must be directly seen, felt, stumbled upon, by workers. As a class. As an organised class. As a class-process.

Out of this, even the most radical proclamations remain part and parcel of an ideological machinery that "objectively" helps the capitalist system remain in place.

Luís Henrique